rules about how men and women can talk about alleged sexual/gender differences — Bitter Crank

This is exactly the problem. "Rules".

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them." — Baden

It will be easy to identify neo-nazi views--they are (supposedly) outside commonly recognized norms of rational thinking. Racism, homophobia, and sexism, however, fall outside, inside, and astride the commonly recognized norms of rational thinking BECAUSE the book hasn't been closed on what are acceptable and unacceptable ideas about sexuality, race, and homosexuality.

Whoever it was who wrote the guidelines probably had a picture of racists, sexists, and homophobes in their mind, and were confident that they would be able to pick out violations of the rules. Perhaps they can. But it is as likely that the moderators will have fairly fuzzy ideas of how sexists, homophobes, and racists write, and will get it wrong -- at least sometimes. (That's not a deficiency on the part of moderators. It's just life.)

You're not even on the field with such objections. The issue is not that there no difference between any one, but rather that the identification of any such difference is misused.

In the sort of position and questions you are asking, you take difference not to be a measure of someone's behaviour or even competency performing a task, but rather a purveyor of status, that is, the existence of some particular difference gives a certain category of people the right to a certain value, authority or role.

Differences are used in this way to split society into respective teams of value (women and men) and then said difference is used to cordon off a particular social context (e.g. art, math, emotion, etc.) to one particular sex, such that it becomes unthinkable to consider a sex ever possessing authority on that context.

It may be sexist to suggest that women are not as good at math, or music, or art as men are, but that seems to me to be a possible opinion. Camille Paglia noted in her book Sexual Personae that women have had two centuries of extensive access to art instruction and art materials without producing much notable art. Is that sexist? — Bitter Crank

So yes, this sexist. Not because of a lack of differences, but rather because it is born from a use of "difference" which uses it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. The value of any art by women cannot be recognised, for it is outright dismissed, for because of "difference," women just don't do that sort of thing. Bring up the work of a women and the hoops will come out-- "She's not famous enough," "Her work only follows the experiences of a family," "She didn't made enough money," "It's not a totalising work of genius," etc.-- which are laden with dismissive value judgements which lock the work of women out of "notable art" as is required.

Women don't have anything to prove. The abilities of a person or the role they fill isn't dependent on some "difference" they've been assigned because of there category. It just a question of what they do. The status posturing of "prove someone X category" can do this just isn't relevant. If they do, a person will act.

With respect to sexism, the of differences wants no difference. Highly different or completely the same, the sexist nature of the difference argument remains. In either world, it's possible for there to be individuals who break such generalised rules, meaning such rules have no impact with respect to defining the presence of someone who does or doesn't do something.

In this identification of sexism, we move from descriptions or questions which claim status of a particular group (e.g. only men are suited to be leaders because they are more often aggressive, only women are suited to be carers because the are more often nurturing), to descriptions of the people as the exist interacting in society (e.g. this women's art has been dismissed because society has a cultural system which rejects it's value).

The categories "male" and "female" simply have no relevance because they are not any existing person who performs an action or role. Any individual's competence, and so their value at performing a certain task, cannot be measured in such a category.

Some resources for those interested -

On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and woman:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article]
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book]

On the institutional basis of gender differences in art:

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf]

On the general myths regarding biological difference and behaviour, with respect to the recent 'Google memo' fracas:

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/the-ugly-pseudoscientific-history-behind-that-sexist-google-manifesto/ [article]
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-better-than-women/ [article]

Other resources re: biological difference and behaviour:

https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920

--

Re: moderation; I think it is fair to consider the perpetuation of myths regarding the sexes as sexist. I think that within certain limits, it is also fair to allow posts that perpetuate those myths to stand, if only so that others can expose them for the myths that they are. Beyond which, as usual, moderation will be contextual.

Fortunately not, this site has an excellent moderation.

No, that's not sexist. Context matters. It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. Also notice that I am critical of that hypocrisy. If that's sexist, oh dear, I don't want to show you what kind of comments Nietzsche and other great philosophers put out there.

If someone asks us why shall a good man support Trump - then we shall answer that Trump is the truth of man, and we want our brother to have an honest look at himself. How can we change the world if we refuse to look at our own face, maybe for the first time? Those cowards, some of whom make their presence felt in this thread by protesting against Trump, are pony-hugging liberals in disguise. They hate Trump because they hate themselves - they will refuse to see their own wretchedness reflected in Trump - so they have to get rid of Trump, only to suppress their own selves.

How utterly hilarious to see them crying about Trump slighting the Truth, when their favorite TV shows slight the Truth each and every day, and behold, they keep on watching? Have they just now awakened and opened their eyes onto the world? Have they been fast asleep, so drawn into their petty play not to know the world they're living in? One has to wonder how deep blindness and stupidity can go.

They would all like to be the overmen on Wall Street, only that they lack the strength - they lack the opportunity. If only power were placed in their hands. But being weak, they hide their desire from themselves - so that they may be able to live with themselves. Instead they promote a fake morality - a hypocritical morality - motivated by their ressentiment and hatred of themselves and of the powerful (whom they nevertheless want to emulate). So on the one hand they condemn theft - but on the other they reward the thief by doing business with him. On the one hand they condemn adultery - on the other they enjoy seeing it in their movies. With one hand they take away, and with the other, behind their backs so that their eyes do not see, they give back what was taken!

That is their pity, for they have never actually rejected immorality. They have just deceived themselves, thinking that they have rejected what is immoral. But they haven't. The sad part is that their so called morality is a reaction to immorality, and not authentic and in-itself, and has the same illusory and shadowy constitution that its parent has. That is why when push comes to shove, they shall once again resort to immorality. If their daughter can marry that unrighteous rich man, then they will immediately agree, and at once will have forgotten all their concerns about morality.

The world pretends to hate men like Trump but actually loves them. The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. In the polls they pretend not to vote for Trump - but when they're alone, with themselves inside the booth, they cast their vote where their hearts are. It is good - they imagine - to pretend to morality but act immorally. We all knew, when we were speaking of morals, that it was merely speaking after all. When we hurt the other - we will retort by "I thought you'd be doing the same" - for we know that what we say is mere politics and nothing more. Indeed, we are surprised by those who expect us to keep our word - that person is really an Idiot for us. Suddenly the mask will go off, and our real face will show.

And the world pretends to love men like Marcus Aurelius, but actually hates them to the core, for true morality disrupts hypocrisy and pulls the cover. And men are too afraid to look at their own faces, and will do anything to keep the veil covering it. They will then start speaking of the complete acceptance of life as it is - as if there was anything more in there than a covert pleading to accept immorality, to drop the pretence. For their heart truly lusts for what is unclean, and their mind only pretends that it is otherwise. They envy Trump, instead of pity him. Indeed, they condemn pity, as the emotion belonging to the weak. But it is only the strong man who can look down on another with compassion and pity, for only the strong man knows what the other lacks. The weak can only look up at what they deem to be the strong with envy. And the one they deem to be the strong shows what their real values are.

When theft, adultery, promiscuity, deception, and the like become the standard - then the immoral shall look up to people exemplifying these "qualities". Even as they condemn them - they shall condemn - but it will be only in speaking, for in reality they will secretly envy those people. For their hearts have not yet renounced evil - nor have their minds seen evil as evil - rather they persist in secretly seeing evil as good.

Few and treasured as the stars in the heavens are those who are truly moral in their hearts, and love God with all their mind, heart, body and soul. — Agustino

It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. — Agustino

Noice.

After reading through this thread I am more convinced than ever before; Feminists (not all but most) are those who most of all hold to ressentiment values these days. But what do they believe in? Religion/spirit? Most of times no. Biology? They may claim it, but in truth no.

Some resources for those interested -

On the myth that testosterone largely accounts for differences in behaviour between men and woman:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article]
https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book]

On the institutional basis of gender differences in art:

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf]

On the general myths regarding biological difference and behaviour, with respect to the recent 'Google memo' fracas:

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/08/the-ugly-pseudoscientific-history-behind-that-sexist-google-manifesto/ [article]
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/men-have-always-used-science-to-explain-why-theyre-better-than-women/ [article]

Other resources re: biological difference and behaviour:

https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920 — StreetlightX

No, postmodernism and other pseudo science is not evidence. Let me provide you with some actual medical articles cited in MEDICAL/SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, not philosophy pretending to be science by your favorite authors:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388783/
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v22/n12/full/nm1216-1370.html?linkId=32115028

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/library/Nochlin-Linda_Why-Have-There-Been-No-Great-Women-Artists.pdf [essay, pdf] — StreetlightX

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Nochlin - art historian, not a scientist.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-02/testosterone-rex-stop-blaming-sexism-on-hormones/8310854 [article]
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jan/18/testosterone-rex-review-cordelia-fine [article] — StreetlightX

Bullshit non-medical articles.

https://www.amazon.com/Testosterone-Rex-Myths-Science-Society/dp/0393082083 [book] — StreetlightX

Academic psychologist.

https://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393340244
https://www.amazon.com/Brain-Storm-Flaws-Science-Differences/dp/0674063511
https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Gender-Biological-Theories-Revised/dp/0465047920 — StreetlightX

Academic psychologist (same as before).
Sociomedical scientist.
Professor of Biology and Gender studies.

Please give some reputable scientific - not philosophic - discussions of gender differences by actual scientists - I'm referring here to MEDICAL doctors primarily, neuroscientists, and the like.

The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones. — Agustino

1. Thanks for the reminder of the context. I still think it's profoundly sexist: you claim to know what women secretly want, and you don't. I think you were sexist towards Mongrel, and to and about TimeLine.

2. Responding to a thread about a complaint with a long diatribe as you did at the beginning of this thread was rude and bullying. It's a rhetorical way of saying, If you complain about me, I'll harangue you in return.

3. To all: this forum has very few women in it. Sometimes it seems to me appallingly like a men's club. Some of the remarks on this thread remind me of blokes either ganging up together, or finding nits to pick when they know in their hearts that the smell of a place is masculine. We should be welcoming to all, and focus on philosophy, not personalities.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men.

I think women (in the modern age, and in the West) are NOT submissive to men sexually, nor intellectually.

I think philosophers are generally dominating. Indeed, being dominating is a trait required for success in philosophy.

I think women should be more submissive (as should men by the way) than they currently are - generally speaking. I'm saying this just cause most people are bloody selfish at the moment - which is the opposite of submissive.

I don't think women should be more submissive to men sexually, but neither should they use sex as a way of dominating men, which, unfortunately, I see more and more women doing in the West.

Women should be more submissive to men intellectually than they currently are, on average, as men seem to make better decision makers. Why? Because men can be ruthless, aggressive and competitive much more frequently than women, traits which are required for making great decisions in the world. This largely has to do with biological makeup (testosterone). — Agustino

None of them are sexist. The middle one saying that women (and men) should be more submissive is a fact. We're all too arrogant. The last one is the only possible one which you can argue about, but it is based on statistical evidence that we have in leadership. If you read the thread, I gave examples of it such as:

Now they have the education and opportunity. Are they as successful as men in terms of leadership capability? No. On average they'll probably never be as successful as men in terms of leadership, because again, they are just programmed differently biologically. Women don't want to dominate, to engage in conflict, etc. Why not? Because they have lower testosterone levels. Such desires are necessary for effective leadership, maybe less so in some areas of the world today, but fundamentally they are. Only 4.2% of Fortune 500 companies have a woman CEO. Really there's no competition, here, most women simply do not have the biological drive to compete with men in terms of leadership. They excel in other attributes - peace, compassion, emotional resilience etc. being some of them. — Agustino

I said on average. There can be exceptions. So yes, if I see that historically men are more effective leaders than women, generally speaking, I will conclude that they are better suited to be leaders, in the absence of any other evidence. — Agustino

https://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2012/04/10/brain-scientists-tackle-possible-biological-basis-for-gender-leadership-gap/#4d5991706154

Now if Stanford brain scientists are sexist for trying to explain the leadership difference through biological differences, then I don't know what planet you are living on. Now science will not be allowed - that's what the postmodernists like StreelightX want - they want to shame science, because it doesn't give them the conclusions that they want.

1. Thanks for the reminder of the context. I still think it's profoundly sexist: you claim to know what women secretly want, and you don't — mcdoodle

So you claim that none of the women on TV for that matter want to have sex with Trump or even be dominated be him?! You claim it's incoherent that any of the woman in question have such a desire? Is that your claim? Because I can tell you that most men would want to have sex with someone famous, as would most women, by the way. That's what our society encourages (badly), not me.

I think you were sexist towards Mongrel, and to and about TimeLine. — mcdoodle

Can you please cite one instance of me being sexist towards Mongrel or TL?

Responding to a thread about a complaint with a long diatribe as you did at the beginning of this thread was rude and bullying. It's a rhetorical way of saying, If you complain about me, I'll harangue you in return. — mcdoodle

No, I think what's rude is accusing me publicly based on no evidence for being a sexist. That's indeed rude.

We should be welcoming to all, and focus on philosophy, not personalities. — mcdoodle

Agreed. I am welcoming to women, I even speak with some of them frequently via PMs. So I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to me.

No, that's not sexist. Context matters. It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. — Agustino

Nah, it's pretty fucking disgusting, tempered only by the fact the whole piece of writing is so numbingly overwrought and self-unaware that the only way to read any of it is as inadvertent self-parody.

Re: sources, I've no desire to get into a citation war with you. I'll only mention that (1) to think that issues of gender difference can only be legitimately discussed by medical or scientific sources exclusively is already to illegitimately pre-suppose the terms of discussion, and that (2) your (consistent) inability to see past labels and titles leaves any discussion of substance woefully hollow.

After reading through this thread I am more convinced than ever before; Feminists (not all but most) are those who most of all hold to ressentiment values these days. But what do they believe in? Religion/spirit? Most of times no. Biology? They may claim it, but in truth no. — Beebert

No, they believe in postmodernist philosophy :P

Oh, whatever happened to Agustino's skepticism of doctors and medicine. — Πετροκότσυφας

You mean my criticism on doctor's diagnosing people with regards to, especially, mental illnesses? What does that have to do with this? :s Yes I distrust the diagnosis of practicing doctors, not the knowledge that doctors who work in research are accumulating.

Nah, it's pretty fucking disgusting, tempered only by the fact the whole piece of writing is so numbingly overwrought and self-unaware that the only way to read any of it is as inadvertent self-parody. — StreetlightX

You are right, it is. That's why I wrote it, to show how disgusting our society is. It's a critique, not an agreement.

(1) to think that issues of gender difference can only be legitimately discussed by medical or scientific sources exclusively is already to illegitimately pre-suppose the terms of discussion — StreetlightX

Oh, so the issues of gender differences must be discussed by postmodernist feminist philosophers, otherwise they're wrong and have to be shamed in public as you advocated right?

Sorry, I forgot to mention that against any evidence or appeal, he can always appeal to independent thinking. Reason. — Πετροκότσυφας

Right, what does this have to do with medical research? :s I clearly trust medical research, otherwise how do you think I gained a decent grasp of medicine? How can I question a doctor and distrust him when he wants to treat me, if not by referring to medical research? :s

You are right, it is. That's why I wrote it, to show how disgusting our society is. It's a critique. — Agustino

I'm not sure that you know what self-parody is, but sure, ok.

Oh, so the issues of gender differences must be discussed by postmodernist feminist philosophers, otherwise they're wrong and have to be shamed in public as you advocated right? — Agustino

For someone who complains about being read badly, you sure have a singular inability to, er, read.

---

I'll also note that that your Forbes article simply points to the sheer fact that the Stanford team are looking into any such differences; it doesn't say anything about the results of any such investigation. The article itself emphasises that much of the difference in gender behaviour is culturally and not biologically accounted for. Again, so much for your reading abilities.

I don't think you've gained any decent grasp of medicine, fella. I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας

So again, please explain to me how I will distrust my doctor if not by appealing to medical research? I can give you one specific example of when I distrusted my doctor, and we can discuss it if you want. This should be very easy for you to explain, granted that you think my grasp of medicine is minimal (although I've been told my doctors that my grasp is similar to a 3rd year medicine student). In fact, here's an explanation of what can account for shortness of breath to Tiff in the Shoutbox:

Hmm I just saw this now, didn't move on the previous page until now. Yes, anemia can definitely cause such symptoms. If there's not enough hemoglobin cells to carry oxygen around your body, then even if your heart is pumping right, and your lungs are oxygenating right, then there will not be enough oxygen going around, and you will start feeling short of breath.

Think of it like this. Your hemoglobin cells are like railcars. Your heart is the engine of those railcars. And your lungs are the factory where the railcars get their goodies from. The railcars need to transport a certain level of goodies in order to supply for everyone who needs them (that is the rest of your body). So maybe there's not enough railcars (anemia - low hemoglobin). Maybe the right goods are replaced with poisonous goods (such as carbon monoxide poisoning). Maybe the engine of the railcars isn't working well - so they don't get around the body (that's the heart). Maybe the factory doesn't produce enough oxygen (that would be the lungs). Or maybe the control centre (the brain) fires off the wrong signal (can happen with a variety of conditions, including very often psychological ones, such as anxiety disorders). These are some of the possibilities that can account for shortness of breath. Oh - useful thing to remember is that blood oxygenation is measured as a percentage of railcars (hemoglobin) that are full, and are passing by wherever you have the pulse oxymeter placed (typically the finger). It doesn't matter what they're full with, whether it's oxygen or carbon monoxide. But that's what it would indicate. Say 97% of hemoglobin are carrying something. So you can imagine the conditions where you'd have a high level of SpO2 and yet still have a problem using the metaphor above. Anemia for example would be one of them.

I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας

:-}

So you claim that none of the women on TV for that matter want to have sex with Trump or even be dominated be him?! You claim it's incoherent that any of the woman in question have such a desire? Is that your claim? — Agustino

I believe his claim was just that you don't know that all the women on TV who claim to be disgusted by Trump are just pretending and secretly desire what Trump does to women.

I believe his claim was just that you don't know that all the women on TV who claim to be disgusted by Trump are just pretending and secretly desire what Trump does to women. — Michael

I agree with that though. Of course I don't. I'm arguing that just some of them are like that, of course not all, that would be silly.

I don't think you've gained any decent grasp of medicine, fella. I think you're among the most inconsistent and intellectually dishonest persons around here. — Πετροκότσυφας

So please, I'm waiting for you to respond. You've made two claims, (1) that I have a poor grasp of medicine, and (2) that I'm contradicting myself by distrusting my doctors during treatment and by trusting medical research with regards to gender differences and other things. So now please show us how you're right. Because I think you're just slandering, and you should be ashamed of yourself to tell you the truth.

You and your ilk came in this thread just to throw stones.

But you did say "The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones.". And as you have now just admitted that "of course not all, that would be silly", you must also admit that mcdoodle was right to call you out on your claim.

But you did say "The women on TV pretend they are disgusted by what Trump does to them. But secretly, they all desire it, and wish they were the ones." — Michael

What did I say about that piece of writing?

It is polemic writing, hyperbolic at times, to emphasise a point. — Agustino

A polemic, sexist piece of writing.

And as you have now just admitted that "of course not all, that would be silly", you must also admit that mcdoodle was right to call you out on your claim. — Michael

Yes, he would have been right if I made that assertion in a context which leaned itself to be interpreted as a categorical statement. But in the context of the rest of the writing, which is just exaggerated for polemical and rhetorical effect, it cannot be interpreted as anything else but hyperbolic.

A polemic, sexist piece of writing. — StreetlightX

Yes, how about you worry about Nietzsche's writings then, will you?! If what I wrote is sexist, then what Nietzsche wrote is racist, sexist and psychotic to the extreme. But of course it seems you will selectively distinguish between polemic writing, depending on who the author happens to be.

Sure. And?

But of course it seems you will selectively distinguish between polemic writing, depending on who the author happens to be. — Agustino